get_troubleshooting_guide

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by noting the content is 'served from inside the server (no network needed),' which helps the agent understand latency and availability characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a short Args block. Every sentence adds value: what it does, where it comes from, when to use it, and the valid topic values.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one required parameter, explicit valid values, clear trigger scenarios, and an output schema already provided, the description covers all essential decision points. The agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without needing additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides only the parameter name and type with no descriptions, so the description fully compensates by listing the valid values: 'setup', 'iam', or 'schema'. It also maps these to error classes in the usage guidance, making the parameter semantics actionable despite 0% schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('troubleshooting/setup guide for a topic'), plus a defined topic parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling schema/list/search tools by focusing on error-resolution guides rather than data retrieval or schema discovery.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever you hit a schema error, dimension_filter parse error, IAM / 403 authorization error, or a boot-time setup error,' giving concrete trigger conditions. It does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.